There’s a typo- “…they’d have to show show that…”
Thanks for pointing that
that out! How’d I miss that?
Planning to do a version 2?
One of these days! There are so many little fixes I plan to get to once I have a moment. A little editing here, a little retcon there, some clearer illustrations…
Looks like you duplicated the word “show” in the next-to-last bubble. Great stuff in all!
If the police don’t need a warrant to perform a reasonable search, then why do they ever get one?
CYA, mostly. Getting a warrant means that a judge has already certified the existence of probable cause, so the search will be valid as long as the warrant is valid and the search is conducted according to said warrant.
Also, police generally don’t need a warrant in the case of a field search/arrest because there’s some element of urgency. If after conducting an investigation a detective wants to make an arrest or conduct a search, they will usually be required to get a warrant since that element of urgency doesn’t exist if one is back at the precinct.
I would imagine that many searches are considered reasonable if you have a warrant but unreasonable if you don’t.
Also, for most of its history the fourth amendment applied only to federal action, whereas most law enforcement was done by the states, so its scope was rather limited.
Probable cause means more likely than not? I had the impression that it was much lower than that.